You can always add your own. JavaME for example has one and it can be used for "normal" Java code as well.
... and making everything a class (oh - already did that one)...
If only they did. But there is still int, char and boolean. SmallTalk was more consequent here.
... and StupidlyLongNamesForSoManyThingsThatItsNotFunny (which is one reason it really needs a pre-processor - terse but readable is better than verboseAlphabetSoup).
I blame the import statement here. Example: java.io.IOException - twice IO in the name? Why? Because every tutorial teaches you to import each and every class - and as a result you need to create class names which are unique. The hole advantage of having packages in the first place is completely lost by over use of the import statement.
The iPhone did have multitasking - only it was a protected function up until now. Just like Symbian protects the All-File function. Just as restrictive but no one no one speaks about that.
The Article was dated 1st April - so we don't really know it's true.
Of course framing someone with child pornography is not new. It even works without breaking and entering. Police needs ages to "investigate" a hard drive. By the time they finally found nothing and dropped charges your wive might have left you.
I think variant array have not made it into C++ yet so there is C code which won't run in C++. And there where some more features of the current ISO C which did not make it into the current ISO C++.
Indeed. Pascal was designed as a teaching language. There is much to be said about using the right tool for the right problem. If teaching programming is the problem then you should indeed us a language which is designed for precisely that problem.
BTW: the other well known teaching language is BASIC but I would go for Pascal.
How did you get accurate numbers on pirated games?
Which is entirely irrelevant - the only number important is: How much would I have sold if I did things different. Which is even more difficult to obtain.
Well that is an optimistic diagram as there are more customers with DRM. It might as well be less. Problem is: you never know - you know the amount of piracy and the amount of customers - but you never know how much you might have sold if you did things different.
You just make one mistake here: You think you can turn all pirates into legitimate users. Or at least more pirates into legitimate users then you have turned users into no no-users. The danger is draconian DRM might mean less sales.
For example I stopped using Amazon all together because of DRM and territorial restrictions on eBooks. That is not only won't I buy eBooks - I am not buying anything there any more.
Again 0% piracy does not mean your DRM was a success.
Indeed - For example for eBooks I have moved to DRM free providers like smash-books and beam-ebooks. I only stated using iTunes when it went 100% DRM free.
Ubisoft thinks that 0% pirates => more revenue. But that is not proven and I think it is wrong.
I do care that a storage medium that stores one 1 MB per cm^2 does not store 10GB per m^2 if you use IT lingo.
That won't be true anyway - unless you would increase the sector size by 10'000 as well. In the early days we had single density and double density disk. Single density used 128 byte per sector and double density 256 byte per sector. That would equivalent to 90 kb and 128 kb (for 40 tracks). If you formatted a double density disk with 128 byte per sectors (as Atari did for compatibility) you only get 127 kb.
I don't see how that is in any way convenient for any engineer who actually works with anything in the physical world.
Well, the address bus of a CPU is pretty physical. It's real copper lines connecting the CPU with it's memory. And the address bus has 2 (on and off) and not 10 states. So using the power of 2 is very convenient for engineers working in IT.
It is only logical to use half a page (128), a page (256) or two pages (512) for sector size on floppy disk and hard drives in the early days. Better performance, better memory usage. The advantages are clear for anybody who has any knowledge in OS design.
Modern computers have shifted page size from 2^8 to 2^12 - and now guess what the cluster size of modern file system is. It is just more efficient to store data in page size thunks.
And power of 10 is pretty useless because neither can 128, 256, 512 and 4096 be divided by 10 now is it easy to find multiples of those which are cleanly dividable by 10. There is no 1GB hard-drive - it is impossible to build (unless you accept the performance penalty of a sector size which does not align with the computers page size). The closes to get is either 999'976 or 1'000'488 byte. And that is not taking into account the platter and track counts.
You could have 11% more capacity - but for some unknown reason WD did not exploit that.
If the drive would not lie about the sector size then you would have a little speed gain as well - but for some unknown reason WD went for compatibly instead.
So yes: there is some potential for larger sector size - but is was not exploited.
Slashdot Mirror
It is easier for those who speak a language where free(dom) and gratis are distinct words. Perhaps why open source is more successful in europe.
Ada has a "rename" statement for that. But again, this too can be overused.
You can always add your own. JavaME for example has one and it can be used for "normal" Java code as well.
If only they did. But there is still int, char and boolean. SmallTalk was more consequent here.
... and StupidlyLongNamesForSoManyThingsThatItsNotFunny (which is one reason it really needs a pre-processor - terse but readable is better than verboseAlphabetSoup).
I blame the import statement here. Example: java.io.IOException - twice IO in the name? Why? Because every tutorial teaches you to import each and every class - and as a result you need to create class names which are unique. The hole advantage of having packages in the first place is completely lost by over use of the import statement.
Martin
So your comment was meant sarcastic. Well yes then it all makes sense. It was just that the joke was lost on me.
Sure about that? Sure that no Mainframe, VAX, Supercomputer had Multiprocessing at the time?
I suggest to read the comments on Ars Technica - and even better follow all the link the said Newspaper:
http://www.nikkeieu.com/index_e.asp
http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20100409D09EE596.htm
http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20100409D09EE593.htm
http://www.nikkei.com//news/headline/related-article/g=96958A9C9381959FE2EAE2E7E28DE2EAE2E6E0E2E3E2E2E2E2E2E2E2;bm=96958A9C9381959FE2EBE2E6938DE2EBE2E6E0E2E3E29494E0E2E2E2
For me this sounds like a sure way to get lots of those "illegal" inbound links very fast.
The iPhone did have multitasking - only it was a protected function up until now. Just like Symbian protects the All-File function. Just as restrictive but no one no one speaks about that.
Yes by now I know it's true. But still: Taking out the hard-drive to send it to the police?
cygwin has touch and I am sure you can find a tool to change data and time which is native windows as well.
The Article was dated 1st April - so we don't really know it's true.
Of course framing someone with child pornography is not new. It even works without breaking and entering. Police needs ages to "investigate" a hard drive. By the time they finally found nothing and dropped charges your wive might have left you.
I think variant array have not made it into C++ yet so there is C code which won't run in C++. And there where some more features of the current ISO C which did not make it into the current ISO C++.
Martin
Indeed. Pascal was designed as a teaching language. There is much to be said about using the right tool for the right problem. If teaching programming is the problem then you should indeed us a language which is designed for precisely that problem.
BTW: the other well known teaching language is BASIC but I would go for Pascal.
Since most car manufactures use C it would be:
if (brake_input > 0)
{
accelerator_output=0;
}
Of course I think using C is wrong to begin with...
So you know: most car manufactures use C for embedded programming. I consider that wrong - they should use Ada or better SPARK-Ada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(programming_language) instead.
This is why you should put more effort in design and proving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(programming_language) and not use C as programming language.
You don't even need AdBlock - every self respecting browser won't open even pop-ups windows any more.
What are the reasons you still limit yourself to standalone calculators? (Honest question.)
How about not being disqualified for cheating in an exam. Besides: in an exam where time is on the essence real buttons rule.
Mine has: http://fx-602p.krischik.com/index.php/Simulator/SymbianOS
How did you get accurate numbers on pirated games?
Which is entirely irrelevant - the only number important is: How much would I have sold if I did things different. Which is even more difficult to obtain.
Or is it more like this
Well that is an optimistic diagram as there are more customers with DRM. It might as well be less. Problem is: you never know - you know the amount of piracy and the amount of customers - but you never know how much you might have sold if you did things different.
You just make one mistake here: You think you can turn all pirates into legitimate users. Or at least more pirates into legitimate users then you have turned users into no no-users. The danger is draconian DRM might mean less sales.
For example I stopped using Amazon all together because of DRM and territorial restrictions on eBooks. That is not only won't I buy eBooks - I am not buying anything there any more.
Again 0% piracy does not mean your DRM was a success.
Depends on your casing - my MacPro can be upgraded without a screw driver.
Indeed - For example for eBooks I have moved to DRM free providers like smash-books and beam-ebooks. I only stated using iTunes when it went 100% DRM free.
Ubisoft thinks that 0% pirates => more revenue. But that is not proven and I think it is wrong.
I do care that a storage medium that stores one 1 MB per cm^2 does not store 10GB per m^2 if you use IT lingo.
That won't be true anyway - unless you would increase the sector size by 10'000 as well. In the early days we had single density and double density disk. Single density used 128 byte per sector and double density 256 byte per sector. That would equivalent to 90 kb and 128 kb (for 40 tracks). If you formatted a double density disk with 128 byte per sectors (as Atari did for compatibility) you only get 127 kb.
That's because of all the overhead as described in the original article. Or read it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk_format#Logical_formatting
I don't see how that is in any way convenient for any engineer who actually works with anything in the physical world.
Well, the address bus of a CPU is pretty physical. It's real copper lines connecting the CPU with it's memory. And the address bus has 2 (on and off) and not 10 states. So using the power of 2 is very convenient for engineers working in IT.
It is only logical to use half a page (128), a page (256) or two pages (512) for sector size on floppy disk and hard drives in the early days. Better performance, better memory usage. The advantages are clear for anybody who has any knowledge in OS design.
Modern computers have shifted page size from 2^8 to 2^12 - and now guess what the cluster size of modern file system is. It is just more efficient to store data in page size thunks.
And power of 10 is pretty useless because neither can 128, 256, 512 and 4096 be divided by 10 now is it easy to find multiples of those which are cleanly dividable by 10. There is no 1GB hard-drive - it is impossible to build (unless you accept the performance penalty of a sector size which does not align with the computers page size). The closes to get is either 999'976 or 1'000'488 byte. And that is not taking into account the platter and track counts.
You could have 11% more capacity - but for some unknown reason WD did not exploit that.
If the drive would not lie about the sector size then you would have a little speed gain as well - but for some unknown reason WD went for compatibly instead.
So yes: there is some potential for larger sector size - but is was not exploited.